FILE - In this file photo taken June 29, 2010, the Apple iPhone 4 is shown at the Apple Store, in New York. A decision by Consumer Reports not to recommend the iPhone 4 because of reception issues could tarnish Apple Inc.'s reputation, but the snub isn'tlikely to dissuade fans who have braved poor reception for years.

Photo: Jason DeCrow, AP

FILE - In this file photo taken June 29, 2010, the Apple iPhone 4...

Image 2 of 6

cnet17 Blackberry Curve

Photo: Cnet17

cnet17 Blackberry Curve

Image 3 of 6

From CTIA WIRELESS 2010(R), Verizon Wireless and LG Electronics MobileComm U.S.A., Inc. (LG Mobile Phones) announced LG Cosmos(TM) will be available on March 25 in Verizon Wireless Communications Stores and online at www.verizonwireless.com. Equipped with a slide-out QWERTY keyboard for easy text messaging and built-in social networking tools and features, LG Cosmos allows customers to keep their friends in the know while keeping up with life on the go. (PRNewsFoto/Verizon Wireless)

Photo: Atkinson Studios, PR NEWSWIRE

From CTIA WIRELESS 2010(R), Verizon Wireless and LG Electronics...

Image 4 of 6

for insight graphic

Photo: Motorola

for insight graphic

Image 5 of 6

Milton Marks III, of San Francisco, is seen on Tuesday, April 19, 2011 in San Francisco, Calif.

Photo: Lea Suzuki, The Chronicle

Milton Marks III, of San Francisco, is seen on Tuesday, April 19,...

Image 6 of 6

** FILE ** In this Sept. 23, 2008 file photo, the T-Mobile G1 Android-powered phone, the first cell phone with the operating system designed by Google Inc., is shown in New York.

"Does not float," it admonished in plain text. Flies "fast and far, always play safely," it warned. Do not fling in the dark, it implored.

"It doesn't seem like it's asking too much," Marks suggested, to require equally prominent warnings about the potential dangers from a device he grasped in his other hand. It was his cellular telephone.

Marks, a 51-year-old father of three, experienced a seizure on Dec. 8 from a brain tumor he suspects - but cannot prove - was related to frequent cell-phone use. He spent 44 days in a hospital, enduring surgery and chemotherapy and ominous prognoses that continue to this day. It irritates him to no end that the wireless industry lobbied last year to stop state legislation to require disclosure of phones' radiation levels at point of sale, and has now gone to court to block a San Francisco law that would compel such disclosure in city stores.

"I find it strange that people are so afraid of the cell-phone industry that they don't stick up for what's right," said Marks, an executive manager for various nonprofits before his illness. His namesake father was a legislator who represented San Francisco for more than three decades; the younger Marks was elected to the Community College Board in 2000, twice won re-election and became president of the trustees.

In fact, it was the demands of a political campaign that prompted Marks to acquire a cell phone - at his mother's and wife's insistence. He vowed to give it up after the election. "I broke that promise," he said. He does not think it is a coincidence that a tumor developed on the left side of his brain - right where he kept his cell phone planted.

The science about the dangers of exposure to non-ionizing radiation from cell phones is far from conclusive. The industry sees the ambiguity as reason for government to stay out of the way. Its lawsuit against San Francisco is based not only on the claim that cell-phone regulation is a federal matter - and no city or state can interfere, even to require disclosure of radiation absorption levels - but that the city is somehow infringing on the industry's First Amendment rights by forcing it to acknowledge, against its beliefs, there may be a problem with radiation exposure.

The industry's First Amendment argument might seem preposterous to anyone who is not an attorney racking up billable hours to represent it. It claims the city is asking it to provide customers with "misleading" and "inaccurate" disclosures - but some of the alleged inaccuracies are decidedly nitpicky. For example, the lawsuit takes the city to task for suggesting that the Federal Communications Commission requires cell phones to have a specific absorption rate (SAR) of less than 1.6 watts per kilogram. In fact, the industry lawsuit scolded, a 1.6 level would meet the federal standard. Also, the lawsuit said the city erroneously referred to SAR as an indication of a type of radiation being emitted, rather than the rate in which the body absorbs radiofrequency energy from a cell phone.

Most of those details could be addressed if the industry were willing to go along with reasonable disclosure requirements - instead of resisting them every step of the way with the threat of legal Armageddon. The San Francisco city attorney's office has been working in closed sessions with the Board of Supervisors to develop strategies to defend the lawsuit from the industry group CTIA.

The FCC has not taken a clear side on the debate about the potential dangers of cell-phone radiation. Its website's suggestion that consumers consider phones with lower radiation levels was removed in September 2010. It does continue to suggest that cell-phone customers who are worried about radiation should take precautions such as maintaining a distance between their phones and their bodies, texting instead of talking and using a hands-free device. A database on the FCC website ( www.fcc.gov) contains various models' SAR levels - they vary widely - but it requires each unit's ID number and is cumbersome to navigate.

Curiously, an industry that has been so adamant about the safety of its products has also been warning its customers - at least those who get deep into the user manuals - to limit their exposure to radio frequency emissions. Perhaps manufacturers are hedging their bets in the event the correlation between cell-phone use and health damage can be established - and they become the tobacco industry of the 21st century.

Related Stories

State Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, whose point-of-sale disclosure bill died last year against intense industry lobbying, has developed a new version (SB932) that would require cell-phone companies to put the warnings on their packages that they now "bury on page 88" of their user guides. "I think we should just lift their language" about the wisdom of limiting exposure, Leno said.

Meanwhile, Ellie Marks (no relation to Milton), who became a leading activist on cell-phone danger after her husband's brain tumor was discovered in 2008, said many cities and states are watching what happens in San Francisco. She is concerned that the risk and cost of fighting the lawsuit might deter City Hall: "If San Francisco caves to the industry - through its threats, manipulation and what some would call extortion - it would be all the more difficult everywhere else."

The industry clearly is going all out against the San Francisco law. A recent court filing lists five law firms working on its behalf.

Its First Amendment argument is ludicrous. To require a cell-phone manufacturer to put maximum radiation-absorption rates in plain view is no more an abridgement of free speech than to require a soup company to list sodium content on cans or an auto company to put fuel economy and global-warming ratings on cars stickers.

Consumers should have access to that data and can decide for themselves whether they want to wait for a scientific consensus before considering radiation levels when shopping for a phone.

No need to worry? Read the fine print

The cell-phone industry insists the concerns about radiation are unwarranted. But user manuals for many popular models include warnings about exposure. New state legislation would require more prominent displays of warnings.

IPhone 4: "When on a call using the built-in audio receiver in iPhone, hold iPhone with the dock connector pointed down toward your shoulder to increase separation from the antenna. ... iPhone's SAR (specific absorption rate) measurement may exceed the FCC exposure guidelines for body-worn operation if positioned less than 5/8 inch from the body (e.g., when carrying iPhone in your pocket)."

BlackBerry: "When using any data feature of the BlackBerry device, with or without a USB cable, keep the device at least 0.98 inches from your body."

T-Mobile G1: Users with pacemakers "should ALWAYS keep the phone more than 6 inches from their pacemaker when the phone is turned ON (and) should not carry the phone in a breast pocket (and) should use the ear opposite the pacemaker to minimize the potential for interference."

Motorola: "Keep the mobile device and its antenna at least 1 inch from your body when transmitting. ... Using accessories not supplied or approved by Motorola may cause your mobile device to exceed RF (radio frequency) energy exposure guidelines."

Verizon: Although "present scientific information" does not call for precautions, "If you are concerned, you may want to limit your own or your children's RF exposure by limiting the length of calls or by using hands-free devices."